1. Texas is trying to sue PA, GA, MI, and WI to challenge their election results *directly* in #SCOTUS.

How can it do that, how does that work, and is this going anywhere?

Here's a quick #thread on the apex of legal arcana:

The U.S. Supreme Court's "original jurisdiction."

2. One of the reasons *why* the Founders created a Supreme Court was to resolve interstate disputes (e.g., over borders, water rights, etc.).

Because lower courts might be biased, #SCOTUS was given "original" jurisdiction in such cases — allowing such suits to *start* there.

3. And today, in suits between states, #SCOTUS's original jurisdiction is *exclusive,* meaning that lower state and federal courts *lack* the power to hear disputes between two or more

4. But the Court has long understood "exclusive" to *not* mean "mandatory," even though some Justices (such as Justice Thomas) believe that it is.

Instead, states must seek "leave to file" an original bill of complaint, and such a motion is *not* granted as a matter of course.

5. One of the factors the Justices look to is whether the *issues* in the case can be resolved in other cases in the lower courts, even if not between the same parties. Thus, the Court usually denies leave unless it's a *uniquely* state-state dispute (again, like borders/water).